The golden rule of thumb with children is that they will always, repeat ALWAYS find the single most dangerous item in the room, even if hidden, and immediately begin to play with it. They will find this item within seconds of entering the room, no matter what you may think.

As a parent, your only options are to either sweep every room continuously removing and/or locking up anything that could be dangerous, OR, you can actually watch them. Actually, the best plan is (C), all of the above.

To avoid this sort of thing, don't leave items in reach of small children that explode or release deadly projectiles. That includes guns, nail guns, dynamite and poison-dart blowguns. Whatever your position on gun rights, just use a little common sense. The terms "unsupervised" and "4-year-old" also rarely bode well.

maxheck: I wish gun owners were a little less wound up about "TEH SECOND AMENDMENT" and a little more responsible about gun ownership.

While I agree with responsible gun ownership, perhaps gun owners would be less "wound up" if the cretins out there would stop trying to use any excuse to disarm the public.

What I don't understand is where the fark people claim that the public is being disarmed.. Can you explain that?

Oh I donno, how about looking in the democratic party's platform regarding the assault weapons ban.

/I'd also like to repeal the Hughes amendment and the import ban while we're at it

Yes, because the 2nd amendment is non-negotiable for each citizen, regardless of how many times a modern weapon's killing power is multiplied, or the mental status of the citizen. See: Aurora CO, Gabby Gifford, etc.

I guess I'm not surprised when conservative in favor of complete gun ownership paint the Second Amendment as being sacred in its most basic wording, I suppose when we can all have handheld fusion cannons they will be truly happy, it was as the founding fathers intended!

Great strawman - but that's not what's being argued. The SCOTUS has consistently held that the 2A provides for arms common to the period. Thusly, all firearms would be considered approved. We also argue that no one should have to prove need for something but that the government should have to prove, on an individual basis, lack of capacity to understand the risks inherent to firearms. This does NOT mean banning any specific firearm because it scares someone. It does allow for preventing individuals who've been judged mentally unstable or incapable for separate reasons (i.e., you can't blanketly say "I don't want this person to own a firearm so show they're not capable". Something else would have to trigger the request and it would require an actual medical professional to make the determination on an individual basis, and have a fairly quick appeals period).

Remember, the 2A isn't different than the 1A. When I commit a crime using my 1A rights, I'm punished under the law even though the exact same words might not have been a crime in a different situation. Same with the 2A. I have the right to any firearm out there, but what I do not have is the right to use that firearm in the commission of a crime.